Yzermandius19

Yeah that is the newspeak to sell it to the rubes, what it actually is under the janus face is as I described to you.

Liberal Party of Canada Multiculturalism is the claim that there is no dominant culture, only a collection of smaller cultures that are superior to the dominant culture of the repressive past, which must be suppressed so they can fill the vacuum created by the absence of the dominant culture with collection of smaller cultures. That is Canadian Multiculturalism, the Post-National State, not the more agreeable sounding concept you describe to conflate the two, just as the LPC does.

That's not multiculturalism either.

The American Revolution was not about being jealous of Quebec, please, that was so far down the list of grievance as to be essentially irrelevant. Biculturalism with a contribution from the natives, is not the multiculturalism of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The Liberal propaganda you've been consuming of course conflates the two, so the Liberals can conflate Liberal identity with Canadian identity, to win more elections. But you've been brainwashed by adherents to this Liberal dogma, and you refuse to admit that they lied to you.

Overrating the value of food to overall cultural contribution, typical.

Different cultures coming to Canada does not mean that was Canada's core identity. They assimilated to British culture when they got here and lived under British rule of law, and all other immigrant groups from different cultures combined didn't eclipse the British population for quite some time after Confederation, for nearly a century. Multicultural Canada is predated by British North America for centuries, you are just trying to erase history, to rob credit from the British, in order overrate the contributions of other cultures.

Mostly British, like I said. You aren't refuting me, you're supporting my case. 1971 is not 1869, pro tip. Just like you always do when you don't even read and/or when you don't comprehend what you quote, thinking it's some argumentative mic drop. Keep making my case for me.

That because the Liberals were out to erase Canadian national identity and replace it with what the Liberals thought was our national identity. If you don't know your own history, something as vacuous as multiculturalism can fill the void and encourage you to keep voting Liberal. This whole process began back in the 1960's, it was there intention for it to be all that the new generations of Canadians growing up ever knew, you are proof it worked like a charm in no time flat.

Minus America, I'm well aware.

Most immigrants were British in 1869. Canada's core culture is a British Colony under the British Crown populated by British subjects, not your cultural mosaic multi-cultural bullsh*t. Your liberal whitewashing does not change actual Canadian history.

That has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Ok, Liberal. See Dr Y, there's your post national state. Our core identity is that we like other's core identities, at least to these people, this narrative has erased Canada's actual identity, and replaced it with vacuous Liberal dogma.

The lack of an identity other than multiculturalism, according to Trudeau.

If the Con Man routine is more effective than a "cohesive strategy" then the former is the smarter move, not the later. Just win baby.

It's not a single function of the trigger with a bump stock, it's a multiple functions of the trigger rapidly. Therefore not full auto.

Like I said, spray and pray did not maximize the death toll, could have killed more with the single aimed shots he started with.

It's Trump's laser pointer. Not Putin's.

Different guns, different recoil, the bump stock harnesses recoil and forward pressure to increase the rate of fire. You can actually get the same result using a belt loop, don't even need a bump stock.

It's been cited, that's not the part he's wrong about.

Maladministration is not an impeachable offense. Crime is the bar, high crimes and misdemeanors to be exact. No witnesses have testified that Trump directed them to push a quid pro quo that was only about going after his political opponents, they have testified that they think that is what Trump wanted, but not that he directed them to push for that.

Holmes is testifying to the contents of call he overheard but was not apart of. Sondland testified as to his experience that Trump said he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo, that is the event Holmes will be recalling. Vindman did not testify to hearing Trump demand a quid pro quo, that was his interpretation, not based on evidence but perception. Just like everyone else who read the transcript, Vindman said it was an accurate depiction of the conversation, his opinion on the matter is as relevant as anyone else not on the call, which is not relevant. I dismiss these things because it's all an attempt to read Trump's mind, not actual evidence of Trump committing a crime that they are recounting.

Except that is not what is happening, much of their testimony is based on their opinions, not what they experienced. The Democrats "bombshells" all focus on the opinions of those giving the testimony, not on what they experienced, which is why no one cares about this whole impeachment charade and no one is watching it.

Speculation.

Testimony that is based on opinion rather than facts is completely irrelevant. Gossip is not evidence.

I want nothing, no quid pro quo, context.